Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■forests. A disconnect between the two could lead todevelopment without any rewards being ploughedback to the forests.The options for the futureVishwas Sawarkar, member of the Expert Committeefor Monitoring and Evaluation of Tiger Reserves, setup by the Union government, states it well: “It is…time now to think and reorder and as necessarycombine our traditional and sectoral ruraldevelopment programmes in at least the forestedrural sector on the lines of the ecodevelopmentprogramme. Ecodevelopment conforms to allobjectives of the traditional rural development andmuch more in the sense that it does not believe in thepopular adage ‘one size fits all’; it does not importurban perceptions of development; it has theessential flexibility to mould itself to suit the crucialsite specific needs; it is developed with fullparticipation of people concerned.” 20The forests in the landscapeThe problem is that the forests in the vicinity ofsettlements are degraded: this pushes the peopletowards the protected area. It is also clear that peopleare highly dependent on forests for meeting theirsubsistence needs. The lack of irrigation facilitiesresults in low fodder productivity, which in turnputs pressure on existing common resources. Theproductivity of forests for foraging declines; peoplehave to keep more and more livestock to survive. Thepressure on the land increases, it degrades further.In such a situation, what clearly needs to be doneis to improve the productivity of forests and pasturelands in the vicinity of the reserves. If people livewithin a forest-dependent economy, then it isimperative to evolve policies for forest-developmentin these areas.It has been estimated that the rural demand forfuelwood in 1996 was 152 million tonne and it willrise to 187 million tonne by 2006. As against this, thelegal supply of fuelwood was a mere 46 milliontonne, according to a 1995 study 21 . The case fortimber is similar. The rural sector uptakes almost 70per cent of the domestic consumption of timber but,as against a demand for 54.4 million cubic meters in1996, the forests could only supply 12 million cubicmetres. 22 The current supply of fodder from allpossible sources, including forests, pasture lands andagricultural fields, is estimated to be 434 milliontonne as compared to an estimated demand of 992million tonne in 1990. 23 The gap for all the three —fodder, timber and firewood — is ever widening andis leading to degradation of growing stock.It is critical that the productivity of our forestsmust be increased. Currently, India’s growing stockof forest has a productivity at a dismally low level of0.7 cubic metre per ha per year as against a globalaverage of 2.1 cubic metre per ha per year. 24 It is clearthat unless we can do this and generate more biomassto meet the needs of people, the pressure on existingforests outside and inside protected areas will grow.According to the report, 287,769 sq km of land isclassified as open forests. The total area of tigerreserves in the country is 37,760 sq km. In otherwords, an area which is over eight times bigger ispotentially available for meeting fuel and fodderneeds. 25It is also clear that all tiger reserves are located inregions which are forested. But as explained earlier,these lands are also populated by the poorest in thiscountry. The challenge then is to find ways ofimproving productivity of these lands, in situationsof intense use by extremely poor people.The practice of joint forest managementJoint forest management was initiated in the early1990s to create reciprocal rights over forests betweenthe forest department and people. Under theprogramme, people were given rights over usufruct— grass and minor forest produce — in return forprotection on degraded forest land. In 2000, theguidelines for the programme were extended to coverforest land which was classified as dense forest(canopy cover of over 40 per cent). The programmewas also institutionalised: forest developmentagencies were created in states as federations of thejoint forest management committees.According to the Forests and Wildlife Statistics,India 2004 report of the Union ministry ofenvironment and forests the programme covers morethan 150,000 forest fringe villages and more than2,500 forest villages. 26 But unfortunately, the gains ofthis programme are not being realised.The problems are partly financial and partlyinstitutional.In part, the investment in afforestation is low; theinitiative also remains poorly coordinated. Theoutlay for the National Afforestation Programme isover Rs 1,100 crore over the five years of the 10 th FiveYear Plan. In addition, there is an allocation forwatershed programmes. Twenty per cent of ruraldevelopment funds are expected to be spent onafforestation as well. The problem is thecoordination required to ensure that all these fundsare spent through the village joint forest managementcommittees in forest land. 27The financial problem is related in part to theinstitutional hassles that continue to trouble thisscheme. The key problem with institutions created tomanage joint forest management remains theirinability to involve villagers in managing forests. Thescheme is still locked into the paradigm of definingThe way ahead 127
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTCommunity reservesA step was taken in this direction by creating twospecial categories of protected areas — communityreserves and conservation reserves during theamendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972in 2003. But it has been pointed out by experts likeAshish Kothari of Kalpvriksh that the reservesmeant to enshrine community-protected areas withlegal teeth, do not practically work out at presentbecause of lack of clarity on several counts.The two protected areas were brought into forcebesides the categories of national parks andsanctuaries which have existed since the inceptionof the Act. The Act says:36C. (1) The State Government may, where thecommunity or an individual has volunteered toconserve wild life and its habitat, declare anyprivate or community land not comprisedwithin a National Park, sanctuary or aconservation reserve, as a community reserve,for protecting fauna, flora and traditional orcultural conservation values and practices.The key idea behind this categorisation is thatpeople should traditionally protect the area and theland should be either private land or communityowned. The other new category is the conservationreserve. The amendment to the law lays down:"36A. (1) The State Government may, afterhaving consultations with the localcommunities, declare any area owned by theGovernment, particularly the areas adjacent toNational Parks and sanctuaries and those areaswhich link one protected area with another, asa conservation reserve for protectinglandscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna andtheir habitat.The management of the community reserve getscomplicated once any land is declared as one.After the issue of notification declaring the land, nochange in the land use pattern can be made withinthe community reserve, except with a permissionof its community reserve management committeeand thereafter, the approval of the same by the stategovernment.Critics like Kothari have pointed out that thefact that the existing parks and sanctuaries cannotbe converted into these categories limits thepotential of the category of protected area. 28 Thiscould have helped reduce tensions in many parkswhere people’s rights and control have beencurtailed. Another critical failure of the newcategory, they point out, is that the law does notconsider the fact that the people also conserveforests on government lands and those too shouldbe turned into community reserves.The management of these reserves under theamendments rests with a committee, which shallconsist of five representatives nominated by thevillage panchayat (village council) or where suchpanchayat does not exist, of the members of thegram sabha (village assembly) and onerepresentative of the state forest or wildlifedepartment under whose jurisdiction thecommunity reserve is located. This structuring istoo rigid and limits the flexibility with which mostcommunity-preserved areas work, like the sacredgroves across the world or the van and lathpanchayats of Uttaranchal. Most of these survivebecause they have found innovative institutions tocounter the day-to-day politics of development.These could get stifled if the straight-jacketregulations of the Act are superimposed.The imposition of restrictions by the SupremeCourt on removal of any products from forests hasmeant that no community which has practised acertain resource use regime, will now want to comeunder the ban by letting its forest be declared as acommunity or conservation reserve. De facto, thetwo categories now stand defunct. Drafted in theproper fashion they hold the potential to changehow people collaborate with the government inconservation, while giving the government the leadon sustainable use regimes.people’s participation as ‘you participate in myprogramme’. It has been unable to deepen thecommitment of people to forest protection, because itis designed to still keep control over decision-makingin the hands of the department, whereas theexperience of forestry teaches that people need to becentrally involved in the management of forest land,in order to increase productivity.There is yet another problem. The fact is thateven after 15 years of joint forest management,people sharing the benefits of the produce have beenlimited to a few states and few areas. It is a fact thatstate governments require funds for establishmentcosts. Over the past some years, forest revenues havegone down because of conservation initiatives, butestablishment costs have continued to increase. Thestanding forests of the joint forest management areasare needed to pay for establishment costs. It isbecause of this, in most states, involved calculationsto estimate the ‘net’ value of the standing timber that128 The way ahead
Page 2 and 3:
THE REPORT OF THE TIGER TASK FORCEJ
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsIntroductionExecutive summa
Page 6 and 7:
IntroductionThe Tiger Task Force wa
Page 8 and 9:
TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 10 and 11:
Page 13:
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 16:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 52:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 91 and 92: Wildlife research has been facing s
Page 99: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 122: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 126 and 127: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 142: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 151: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 156 and 157: 04Action plan for changeKey recomme
Page 164 and 165: 05References
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
show all

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?